Whitfield v. United States
In brief
A few feet of forced movement between rooms was enough under the federal law, and the Supreme Court left the appeals court's ruling in place.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-0 · January 13, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that Larry Whitfield forced Mary Parnell to accompany him under the federal bank-robbery law when he made her move several feet from one room to another; a substantial distance was not required.
- Who it affects
- Under the forced-accompaniment part of federal bank-robbery law, movement from one room to another can count even if it is only several feet.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court agreed with the lower court (affirmed).
The dispute concerned what the federal bank-robbery law means when it says a robber forces someone to accompany him.
Question presented
Does the forced accompaniment offense require proof of more than minimum movement on the part of the victim?
What the Court decided
Holding
A bank robber “forces [a] person to accompany him,” for purposes of §2113(e), when he forces that person to go somewhere with him, even if the movement occurs entirely within a single building or over a short distance, as was the case here. At the time the forcedaccompaniment provision was enacted, just as today, to “accompany” someone meant to “go with” him. The word does not, as Whitfield contends, connote movement over a substantial distance. Accompaniment requires movement that would normally be described as from one place to another. Here, Whitfield forced Parnell to accompany him for at least several feet, from one room to another, and that surely sufficed. 70, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said “accompany” means to go with someone, not to travel a substantial distance. Because Whitfield made Parnell move several feet between rooms, that movement qualified.
The vote
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished reviewing the case. No further step is specified.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Whitfield
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.